European UPC IP Litigation
1,592 annotated decisions
Page 64 of 67 · 1,592 total
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
In a decision concerning security for legal costs, the UPC Local Division in Munich rejected the request by Network System Technologies LLC (NST) to provide financial guarantees. NST argued that its limited assets and US domicile made cost enforcement difficult. The Court countered this by stating that general claims of unenforceability were insufficient, noting that foreign judgments are generally enforceable in the US. The ruling reinforces the principle that access to justice must be balanced against security requirements, especially for SMEs.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
This UPC decision addressed applications seeking security for legal costs, filed by the US-based defendant Network System Technologies LLC against Volkswagen AG and Audi AG. The Court rejected the request, emphasizing that while access to justice is crucial, the burden of proof rests on the applicant to demonstrate a genuine risk that cost reimbursement would be impossible or severely difficult. The ruling reinforces the principle that general concerns about foreign judgment enforcement are insufficient grounds for requiring security.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH
This decision from the Düsseldorf Local Division addresses a critical procedural issue regarding third-party intervention in UPC cases. Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. sought to allow its licensee (Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd.) to join both an infringement lawsuit and a concurrent revocation counterclaim. The court ruled that the licensee possesses sufficient legal interest, particularly when the local division bundles both types of claims for unified interpretation. This ruling significantly clarifies the scope of participation rights for licensees in complex UPC litigation.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd.
This procedural order addressed the method of serving a complaint in an infringement action brought by Daedalus Prime LLC against several Xiaomi and MediaTek entities. The plaintiff argued that certain German branch offices could serve as valid places for service under UPCA Rules 271.5 RoP, despite the defendants being foreign-domiciled. However, the Court rejected this argument, emphasizing the strict hierarchy of procedural rules governing international service. The ruling clarified that when defendants are domiciled outside the UPCA territory, standard international procedures like the Hague Service Convention must be followed under Rules 273 and 274 RoP. This decision reinforces the importance of adhering to established international legal frameworks for proper litigation procedure in the UPC.
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
In a procedural ruling concerning EP 2 697 391, the UPC Court of Appeal granted Curio Bioscience's request to change the court language from German to English. The decision emphasized that fairness is paramount when considering such changes, particularly weighing the position of the defendant (10x Genomics). This case highlights the practical application of procedural flexibility within the UPC framework, allowing parties to adjust proceedings based on linguistic and operational needs.
MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH, Advanced Bionics Sarl
This UPC decision addressed a procedural application filed by Advanced Bionics to change the language of the infringement action from German to English, citing international business operations and parallel proceedings. The Court rejected this request, holding that strategic choices or internal group coordination do not automatically satisfy the 'reasons of fairness' required for a language change under the UPC Rules of Procedure. This ruling reinforces the principle that procedural requests must demonstrate a concrete disadvantage directly affecting the defense in the specific case, rather than merely reflecting global corporate strategy.
F. Hoffman-La Roche AG v.Rubin Medical ApS, c/o Diatom A/S, Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V.
In this UPC case concerning diabetes care technology, the court addressed multiple procedural challenges raised by defendants seeking to change the language of the proceedings from German to English. The claimants argued that such a change was not permissible under the EPC or Rules of Procedure. Ultimately, the court dismissed all requests for a language change, primarily due to technical failures in meeting strict filing deadlines, thereby maintaining the German language as the official procedural language.
ICPillar LLC v.Arm Limited (and associated entities)
This procedural order addressed preliminary objections regarding UPC jurisdiction in a complex multi-defendant infringement case involving ICPillar LLC and various entities of the Arm group. The Court ruled that the Paris Local Division had jurisdiction, applying Article 33(1)(b) UPCA because one defendant was based in France. Crucially, the ruling broadened the interpretation of 'commercial relationship,' stating that corporate affiliation and shared commercial goals are sufficient to establish the necessary link for unified proceedings.
F. Hoffman-La Roche AG v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc.
In this UPC case concerning diabetes care technology, the court addressed procedural challenges raised by several defendants seeking to change the language of proceedings from German to English. The claimants argued that the procedural language was fixed and could not be changed against their will. The court ultimately dismissed all requests for a language change, citing strict rules regarding filing deadlines and the lack of legal grounds for altering the established procedure.
Toyota Motor Europe NV/SA v.Neo Wireless GmbH & Co KG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural dispute regarding the timing for filing an appeal statement following the granting of leave to appeal. Toyota sought a default judgment against Neo, arguing that Neo missed the deadline based on the date of the initial order. The Court definitively ruled that the relevant 15-day period begins only upon service of the specific decision granting leave to appeal, not the original impugned order. This ruling provides crucial clarity for practitioners navigating procedural deadlines in UPC appeals.
Ocado Innovation Limited v.Autostore Sp. z o.o., Autostore System GmbH, Autostore System AT GmbH, Autostore System AB, Autostore System S.L, Autostore System Srl, Autostore AS, Autostore S.A.S.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the scope of public access to court documents under R.262.1(b) RoP, specifically in the context of a settlement reached in infringement proceedings. The court ruled that while confidentiality interests must be considered (Art. 45 UPCA), the general interest in justice and public order generally favors granting access unless the requester has a direct, specific legitimate interest in the subject matter. This ruling provides important guidance on balancing transparency with proprietary rights within UPC litigation.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG
This UPC decision addressed a motion concerning provisional measures related to an avalanche rescue transceiver patent (EP 3 466 498 B1). The court upheld the existing injunction and security deposit requirement while granting preliminary costs relief to the claimant, Ortovox. The ruling also provided important procedural guidance on patent interpretation and cost allocation in interim proceedings when a main action is anticipated.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Odiporo GmbH, Shamrock Mobile GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a critical procedural issue concerning the effective date of service in an appeal. The case involved Xiaomi, which sought clarification on when it was formally served with the appeal documents due to technical glitches within the Case Management System (CMS). The court found that conflicting information and CMS misconfiguration led to confusion regarding the actual delivery date. Consequently, the Court ruled that April 3, 2024, must be recognized as the correct service date, ensuring Xiaomi's right to respond by the extended deadline.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.
In this procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed a request by the defendants for an extension to file their Statement of Defence (SoD). The defendants argued that the recent change in the language of proceedings from German to English justified the delay. However, the court rejected this request, emphasizing that deadline extensions must be granted only under exceptional circumstances. This ruling reinforces the UPC's commitment to maintaining procedural efficiency while acknowledging the need for fair trial rights.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.AWM S.R.L.
This UPC CFI decision addressed a procedural application by the patent proprietor seeking access to expert reports gathered during provisional measures. The Court ruled against Progress Maschinen & Automation AG, finding that the applicant failed to initiate substantive proceedings within the mandatory timeframe established by the initial order. Consequently, the provisional measures were revoked and the request for report disclosure was dismissed. This case underscores the strict procedural requirements governing evidence preservation in UPC actions.
BITZER Electronics A/S v.Carrier Corporation
In this interim conference regarding the revocation action against EP 3 414 708, the UPC Central Division addressed several critical procedural issues. The court strictly enforced the principle against late-filed attacks, excluding novelty arguments that were not part of the initial statement for revocation. However, it allowed sufficiency challenges targeting the amended patent to proceed. This decision highlights the UPC's commitment to maintaining a structured and front-loaded litigation process.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
In a procedural order concerning an infringement action, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf granted an extension of time to the claimant, FUJIFILM Corporation. The request was necessitated by the defendants' application for protection of confidential information (R. 262A RoP), which initially restricted access to key factual pleadings. The Court ruled that granting this extension is essential to uphold the principles of due process and ensure the claimant can properly develop its defense strategy based on all available facts.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural appeal concerning the rectification of a defendant's name in five revocation actions. The core issue was whether the initial clerical error, where 'Juul Labs, Inc.' was named instead of 'Juul Labs International, Inc.', invalidated the proceedings. The court rejected the appeal, upholding the lower court's decision to rectify the name, thereby allowing the underlying revocation actions to proceed.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural appeal concerning the rectification of a party's name in five revocation actions. The respondent, Juul Labs International, Inc., appealed an order that corrected a clerical error in the defendant's name from 'Juul Labs, Inc.' to 'Juul Labs International, Inc.'. The court rejected the appeal, affirming the procedural correction. Crucially, the decision also provided guidance on cost allocation, stating that since this is not a final judgment on the merits of the revocation actions, costs will be determined later.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural appeal concerning the rectification of a defendant's name in five revocation actions. The appellant, Juul Labs International, Inc., challenged the initial court order that corrected the name from 'Juul Labs, Inc.' to 'Juul Labs International, Inc.'. The Court ultimately rejected this appeal, upholding the administrative correction. Crucially, the ruling also provided a detailed interpretation of UPC Rules regarding costs, confirming that cost allocation can only occur in the final decision on the merits.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural appeal concerning the rectification of a defendant's name in five revocation actions. The appellant, Juul Labs International, Inc., challenged the lower court's order to correct a clerical error regarding its corporate name. The Court rejected the appeal, affirming that the initial correction was appropriate. Crucially, the ruling also provided guidance on costs, stating that since this is not a final decision on the merits of the revocation actions, no cost orders will be issued at the appellate level.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH; Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
In this UPC case, Avago Technologies sued Tesla entities for infringement of EP1838002. Concurrently, the defendants filed counterclaims seeking revocation of the patent. The court issued an order consolidating all claims—the main action and both counterclaims—to be heard together before the Munich Local Division. This procedural step streamlines the litigation process by addressing infringement and validity simultaneously.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural dispute concerning the correct naming of parties in revocation actions. The respondent, NJOY Netherlands B.V., sought to rectify the defendant's name from 'Juul Labs, Inc.' to 'Juul Labs International, Inc.', which was deemed a clerical error. The court rejected the appeal against this rectification order, confirming that the procedural steps taken by the Court of First Instance were correct. Crucially, the ruling also clarified the timing for cost allocation in UPC proceedings.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH; Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
In a case concerning patent infringement, the UPC Local Division issued a final order regarding confidentiality of business information. The court determined that projected sales results submitted by Tesla were indeed trade secrets, necessitating strict access limitations. This ruling is significant for practitioners as it reinforces the robust protection available for commercially sensitive data within ongoing UPC litigation.